Guevara vs.

Guevara and Buison

WILLS; PRESENTATION OF WILL FOR PROBATE IS MANDATORY; SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE ON BASIS OF INTESTACY
WHEN DECEDENT LEFT A WILL, AGAINST THE LAW.—We hold that under section 1 of Rule 74, in relation to
Rule 76, if the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and legatees desire" to make an
extrajudicial partition of the estate, they must first present that will to the court for probate and divide
the estate in accordance with the will. They may not disregard the provisions of the will unless those
provisions are contrary to law. Neither may they do away with the presentation of the will to the court
for probate, because such suppression of the will is contrary to law and public policy. The law enjoins
the probate of the will and public policy requires it, because unless the will is probated and notice
thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be
rendered nugatory, as is attempted to be done in the instant case. Absent legatees and devisees, or
such of them as may have no knowledge of the will, could be cheated of their inheritance thru the
collusion of some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the estate among themselves to the
exclusion of others.

Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any question as to the authenticity and due
execution of the will, none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with that
will without first securing its allowance or probate of the court: first, because the law expressly
provides that "no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the
proper court"; and, second, because the probate of a will, which is a proceeding in rem, cannot be
dispensed with and substituted by any other proceeding, judicial or extrajudicial, without offending
against public policy designed to effectuate the testator's right to dispose of his property by will in
accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and legatees under the will thru the means
provided by law, among which are the publication and the personal notices to each and all of said
heirs and legatees. Nor may the court approve and allow the will presented in evidence in such an an
action for partition, which is one in personam, any more than it could decree the registration under
the Torrens system of the land involved in an ordinary action for reivindieacion or partition.

TORRENS REGISTRATION; REGISTRATION DOES NOT AFFECT RIGHTS OF PARTITION BETWEEN LEGATEES. It results
that the interested parties consented to the registration of the land in question in the name of E. M. G.
alone subject to the implied trust on account of which he is under obligation to deliver and convey to
them their corresponding shares after all the debts of the original owner of said land had been paid.
Such finding does not constitute a reversal of the decision and decree of registration, which merely
confirmed the petitioner's title; and in the absence of any intervening innocent third party, the
petitioner may be compelled to fulfil the promise by virtue of which he acquired his title. That is
authorized by section 70 of the Land Registration Act, cited by the Court of Appeals, and by the
decision of this Court in Severino vs. Severino, 44 Phil., 343, and the cases therein cited.